However, unlike incandescents, fluorescents are not all created equal, and the phosphor mix and resultant spectrum varies widely from type to type.
Unlike your condemnation, which is universal to the method.
Which strongly implies prejudice, not actual experience.
I'm well aware of that - and sort of mentioned it in an earlier post.
Universal to all the CLFs I've seen.
I have no prejudice against lamp types - just the end results. And the 'fashion' for such things regardless of their performance or practicality. It is easily argued that conventional fluorescent lighting is far superior to CLFs as it provides a larger therefore softer source. It's fashion that requires a small bulb regardless of how well it does the job.
Indeed, I've been working for some months on a Govt agency CCTV project, and despite picking illumination that's supposed to be "white", the cameras show major colour differences between artificial and natural light - far more than one sees between sunlit and overcast, at the least. In some cases, cars identified as blue in natural light are described as green by the viewing and assessment panel, similar things happen for yellow, orange and even white ("pale green" quite often under artificial discharge tube light).
As a sound engineer, you'll probably appreciate the analogy that natural light and incandescent bulbs are continuous, random "white noise" spectra, CFLs produce a set of narrow continuous tones in an attempt to emulate white noise - audibly, the difference would be very clear, but the ear's a far more discerning instrument than the eye in some ways!
Dave H. (The engineer formerly known as Homeless)
I'm sorry, but you seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes a kitchen - I suspect it's the Dour Calvinist showing through. You should meet Gordon Brown, very likely you'd get on like a house on fire, he's very Fiscally Prudent, too.
It's not a kitchen with a dining room, it's just a kitchen - perhaps you're thinking of a scullery?
On the contrary, halogen bulbs emit a continuous spectrum which closely mimics natural light - closely enough for them to give some relief to Seasonal Affective Disorder sufferers. The crucial point is the continuous spectrum, something CFL's don't provide.
I'll pay the price, I save enough energy by not heating my house to high temperatures and primary insulation (mostly body fat, regrettably) to spend a few Joules ensuring I can see what I'm doing or eating!
My big question is "How can anyone cook when they can't see the food properly?" - we've spent quite some time evolving colour vision so that we can tell whether the foods we eat are ripe, spoiled or poisonous, and colour vision's an essential part of cookery, at least if you want it to look palatable. My ex-wife had no clue when it came to making food look inviting, which put me and our guests off, but I suppose it did end up with me doing the cooking when we had guests...
At the end of the day, it's down to personal taste, assuming one has any, and opinion - one thing I notice is that the opponents of the CFL for inhabited space outnumber you, so clearly a lot of people find them distasteful.
Dave H. (The engineer formerly known as Homeless)
Oh definitely. I've looked at a fluorescent tube on a spectrograph, some
35 years ago at school..but the modern stuff is not the same phosphor wise at all.I am not saying its perfect, but the spectral mix is more than adequate for ordinary lighting IMHO.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:56:21 +0100, Dave H. wrote (in article ):
Especially when it comes to spending other people's money than his own.
Absolutely.
Have you tried these? :
If so what did you think of them?
They can be bought quite cheaply in JL's or Argos ;)
cheers, Pete.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 19:07:17 +0100, Pete C wrote (in article ):
nergy-Savers/Philips-6year-Softone-E-Savers/133/19>
Yes I have. Short answer, not a lot. They were relegated to lighting for a shed.
It doesn't really matter how cheap they are (or not) if they aren't suitable for the job.
You would have been looking at a halophosphate tube back then (probably a T12 -- 1.5" diameter, but halophosphate was used in in the smaller tubes back then too). Halophosphate tubes generate a large number of spectral lines, but it was not possible to create just any colour you might happen to want. In particular, the colour rendering of warm white halophosphate tubes was particularly bad.
The more modern T8 and the new T5HE and T5HO tubes use rare earth triphosphor coatings. These phosphors are more expensive, but the thinner tubes mean less surface area and hence less phosphor is required. (It also makes it possible to design more accurately controlled beam optics in the luminare, as the light source is smaller.) The triphosphor produces 3 main spectral bands, being the same additive primary colours you get on a monitor or TV tube. The ratios of the 3 colours can be adjusted in any way you want during manufacture, which means any any colour tube can be made, or "white" at any CCT (colour corected temperature). The CRI (colour rendering index) of the triphosphor coatings is significantly better than some of the old halophosphate CCT tubes, in particular the old Warm White, but some of the other specialist halophosphate tubes (particularly very high CCT ones such as 'Northlight') happened to have quite good CRI which triphosphor struggles to match.
Like I said in another posting, CRI isn't an aspect of CFL's which people complain about, and there are plenty of other aspects they complain about. (People did complain about the CRI of old halophosphate Warm White, so CRI is certainly not something people are completely blind to.)
I presume this is the 23W GE Genura. It's an R80 floodlamp, and its light output exceeds that of a 100W R80 floodlamp. It was (and as far as I know, remains) the only compact fluorescent whose light output exceeds that of the same physical size filament lamp it replaces.
It is technically very different from most other CFLs, in that it has no electrodes -- the tube itself is one turn of the inverter transformer. Since it has no electrode coating to wear out, it lasts longer than convensional CFL's. Failure is due to the phosphor coating wearing out (starts getting dim), or due to the inverter electronics dying (unlikely unless it runs hot in badly ventilated luminare).
GE developed it about 10 years ago, but sadly have done nothing with electrodeless induction lamps since. The chinese are now developing the concept, and you will probably start seeing chinese electrodeless induction lamps in the form of CFL retrofits appearing soon. Osram and Philips have also had electrodeless induction lamps in their portfolios for ~10 years, but not in retrofit format.
Given the high standards to which your shed is reportedly constructed, I would have expected better "even" in the shed. :-)
Owain
I've Googled, but failed...
Another Google failure.
Anything like 'Link Light Fluorescent Fittings' from TLC -
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:49:14 +0100, Owain wrote (in article ):
Different shed.
This one houses animal feeds, bicycles and salt for the water softener.
I only need to count the number of bags and bikes, which can be done under this light. Fortunately I can make it to the door before the retching sets in.
Well, googling on klik lighting sockets gives first 6 matches all relevant. However, finding a good picture of the architrave socket (part S26) I used was a little harder...
I think he hasn't tried them really, hence the vague answer.
If he had he'd know why I thought he hadn't... :)
cheers, Pete.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:33:42 +0100, Pete C wrote (in article ):
I've tried Philips CFLs as well as several other brands. Whether it was the particular ones in your URL, I have no idea - I don' t have time to waste recording product codes. The results were disappointing and they went in a shed.
I can go to the store and buy tungsten lamps and know that I am getting what I want. Why would I want to tit around trying out different CFLs when results to date have been universally disappointing? At the point that this technology can produce an appealing rather than an insipid light and when products fit all of my lamp fittings correctly and without modification, it may, just may, be worth looking again. For the moment, that point has not been reached so it isn't worth the time, effort and cost.
Fir me, that exact point was reached earlier this year. I am using double spirals from a firm whose name escapes me, that actually DO produce about the equivalent wattage they claim, which come on almost instantly, and whose light is softer, but no less appealing than a halogen or stock bulb.
These are about 4 quid a pop. Which with supermarket light bulbs that last 6 weeks costing 50p or more, is a definite saving.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 23:10:59 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote (in article ):
Next time you swap one, please could you note and post the name/product code. I don't mind looking from time to time and respect your judgment.
thx
Yup. Northlights used to be common on TV locations as practicals where you were likely to have shots which go from outdoors to indoors, and the triphosphor ones just ain't as good. But have a much longer service life. So they're not as good as northlights at their best, but much better than ailing ones, so perhaps a decent compromise.
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:32:29 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall wrote this:-
Then you should not have made the dogmatic statement that, "they are not suitable for domestic settings, unless you like the house to look like a factory of course."
Actually one person has agreed in this thread.
Incorrect.
Had I left out the first word then you would be correct.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.